Rich, you are confusing perception with conception, and thereby generating a misconception. One may initially not be able to perceive something which is actually
physically there for a variety of reasons. Blindness, e.g. Optical illusion, as the examples in your presentation illustrate. Mis-perception: I didn’t hear what you said. Or post-perception, mis-interpretation: I thought you meant the other kind of “bank”.
However, perception grounds out in conception, which is typically based on shared reality, i.e., ontology.
Deception is based on using/misusing perception and lying (i.e., an ability that depends on some kind of truth value). How can you lie if you don’t know what
the truth is? Our “truth” (truth-functional, truth-conditional) is largely based on ontology, i.e., the common real (or offsets of the real, e.g., fictional, mythical, impossible, etc.) things of the world.
Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately), you share 95% of your ontology with us here in the Ontolog Forum: it’s a common, shared ontology. That’s why we can
approximately understand you.
Thanks,
Leo
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 12:17 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Proof that we construct language from our perceptions
Dear Ontologists,
The attached PowerPoint presentation shows how we can construct language, and other facilities, through what we expect to see instead of
what we actually see.
I found it on another list, but I want to share it with those who still think we have a common set of concepts. Note especially the slide
with words wildly misspelled, note also the slide that can only be seen by adults, and the one where only children can see the dolphins.
HTH,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2